RoboCCFC90
Well-Known Member
Without trying to bait an almighty thread of differences and arguments, please base this on the previous rental agreement with ACL.
I'd say yes. Even at 1.2m, the break-even attendance to pay the rent is just 2,300.
The rent was not the driving factor behind the debt that the club built up whilst at the Ricoh.
I'd say yes. Even at 1.2m, the break-even attendance to pay the rent is just 2,300.
The rent was not the driving factor behind the debt that the club built up whilst at the Ricoh.
And Robo how can they do it at Sixfields? or by splashing out £30-£40M on a new ground?
The reason I ask Andreas is because I don't believe CCFC were viable now this isn't down solely to the rent, player wages, attedances figures and lack of matchday revenue, but from taking a quick scribble of last season based on the variables I mentioned CCFC would have been -£137,920 overall, before paying company salaries and so forth, hence the point I am really trying to make here everyone wants CCFC to return to the Ricoh (this much is obvious) the last rental deal on offer would have made CCFC finacially viable, but only slightly. To be competitive CCFC need to increase there revenue this much is obvious, but how can CCFC do that at the Ricoh if rent deals are only what ACL/CCC are to offer?
Have you taken onto account all sponsorship deals, merchandise, TV money and corporate days etc? Are you taking about the latest rental deal for this season for free and 100k for 2 seasons after that only making us slightly financially viable?
The reason I ask Andreas is because I don't believe CCFC were viable now this isn't down solely to the rent, player wages, attedances figures and lack of matchday revenue, but from taking a quick scribble of last season based on the variables I mentioned CCFC would have been -£137,920 overall, before paying company salaries and so forth, hence the point I am really trying to make here everyone wants CCFC to return to the Ricoh (this much is obvious) the last rental deal on offer would have made CCFC finacially viable, but only slightly. To be competitive CCFC need to increase there revenue this much is obvious, but how can CCFC do that at the Ricoh if rent deals are only what ACL/CCC are to offer?
simply maths (which RFC has disagreed with, but not said why)
Ricoh - 23 games x 10,000 fans x £15 per ticket = £3.45 million. Take off the £1.3 million rent and that = £2.15 million
Sixfields - 23 games x 3000 fans x £15 per ticket = £1.04 million. Lets say its rent free at Sixfields = £1.04 million.
Even at the crazy rental costs, the club would have made far in excess of £1 million extra by staying at the Ricoh, this season alone !
That's fair enough with regards to the simple maths, but you have to account for players wages or else it stands no bearing now roughly this season I would say we are spending £1,742,000 a year on Wages, include that into your maths and it's less than half a million, which isn't good.
Plus around 30 games at £10,000 per game for "costs", and it gets a lot less.
That's fair enough with regards to the simple maths, but you have to account for players wages or else it stands no bearing now roughly this season I would say we are spending £1,742,000 a year on Wages, include that into your maths and it's less than half a million, which isn't good.
Plus around 30 games at £10,000 per game for "costs", and it gets a lot less.
so less than half a million profit at the ricoh, or minus £700k at Sixfields !
are you suggesting "costs" are on top of the £1.3 million rent ?, meaning we were actually paying (or being asked to pay) over £1.5 million ?
I see your point, how do people expect us to be competitive and sustainable going forward?
It goes from being half a million to half then that instantly, with merchandise sales and TV Revenues, it might bump it up by £2,000,000 (That's generous) but how does that make CCFC competitive going forward?
I'd say yes. Even at 1.2m, the break-even attendance to pay the rent is just 2,300.
The rent was not the driving factor behind the debt that the club built up whilst at the Ricoh.
That's fair enough with regards to the simple maths, but you have to account for players wages or else it stands no bearing now roughly this season I would say we are spending £1,742,000 a year on Wages, include that into your maths and it's less than half a million, which isn't good.
are you suggesting "costs" are on top of the £1.3 million rent ?, meaning we were actually paying (or being asked to pay) over £1.5 million ?
The average ticket revenue averaged £10 per ticket sold so that's nonsense.
Without trying to bait an almighty thread of differences and arguments, please base this on the previous rental agreement with ACL.
Yes that is the arrangement and also ticket sales never were more than £10 per person even at its peak
Thanks Grendal. So, £10 x 10,900 x 23 = £2.5 million. Minus the £1.5 million rent is £1 million profit
That correct ?
It is if you don't want to have any players.
So players play for less at different grounds do they?